@powell77260 bravo pour ton esprit d'analyse, on sent bien l'expert aeronautique qui sommeille en toi, toujours pret à de bonnes phrases et surtout pour comparer les avions entre pays, il faut montrer que son pays est le plus fort, plus fort que tous les autres lol
We need another SST airliner, but more of a practical one. Mach 1.8 would do. would allow you to go from one side of the earth to the other in a business day. ie 10 hours. or sydney to london. time to start lobbying Boeing and Airbus I think....
Si seulement Air France pouvait le remettre en service, cet avion est sublime. Il est le reflet de la belle alliance France/Angleterre mais aussi la belle image de ce qu'est l'aviation. On ne peut pas laisser cet avion disparaître dans nos mémoires. Reviens concorde !
@OutlawsDead oubli le concorde il n'est plus rentable toute facon... air france il pense qu'aux chiffre d'affaire il s'en tape des client tinkiet pas ils on une mauvaise image en ce moment je bosse a roissy les passagés son pas trés content, mais le problem vien de CDG parceque c'est nul...
es una tremenda pena ke la era concorde haya terminado de esa manera tan tragika....un avion excepcional ...un supersoniko ke dejo su huellita en la historia de la aviacion....
The TU-144 isn't a copy of Concorde))) If u know))) Theese planes were built together and if u don't know Tu-144 has better aerodynamics than Concorde))) Also when Boeing began proecting new supersonic plane they chose Tu-144, not Concorde, rebuilt it to TU-144LL and were made many experiments on HIS board)))
@jdgandaram 1st. i just hate that language, i was forced to learn it, but never liked it.
2.nd my opinion is my opinion strictly. Reflect my personal opinion and not all the white people...if you think about it most french people are Caucasian, so is not a racial issue here.
3. please if someone comment on my comment, i prefer english, because i don`t understand franch.
It's scary to consider that many kids will look at photos and videos like this and think the Concorde is some kind of future concept design, compared with the commercial airplanes in production for the last 30 years...
And also a failure of civilization to choose not to continue to explore and develop technology that was possible more than 40 years ago without computer-assisted design.
people think this was the fastest passenger jet ever. But there was also an russian version of the concorde: Tupolev Tu-144. But still i like better the concorde because im German. :)
Concorde was built by the masters ,the Best Of the Best in Aviation world ( Franco-Britanic ) .Americans always learn from Europeans,and gaining faster knowledge due to her multiTrillion in wealth.But Without doubt Europeans are the Masters in Aviation than anyone in the world.This 1969 technologies really proved how advance was France and Britain are in Aviation.
Concorde still amazing marvel even after her death,the crown still and will remain on her grave.
J'ai eu l'occasion de le voir de près et même de le visiter sur la zone de montage de l'Airbus A 380 à Toulouse, c'est vrai qu'il est splendide un peu moins grand que ce que l'on pourrait imaginer mais c'était l'avion présidentiel.
tooldto machin bidule t est un cretin renseigne toi avant de l ouvrir ;le concorde volait bien avant le TU144 ; les russes ont espionné et copié le concorde; sauf qu il qu il etait moche et qu il volait comme un fer a repasser leurs TU144
@laciterne95 Ils ont pas espionner, Ls constructeurs des deux appareils communiquaient entre eux, cependant ne croit pas que les Francais et Anglais n'ont pas chercher a copier quelques truck sur le TU-144..
je suis navré c'est ducamembere c'est tout si un tout petit cailloux a pu transversé un aile et je suis encore navré mais c'est un avion connerie pas exception le B737 est un avion d'exption rappellez vous le le vol ALOHA235!
@imazighen87 ouai bah moi aus chui navré...pour toi car c'est pas un petit caillou mais un morceau de pneu de 5kg à 300km/h qui a explosé le réservoir!!
I also agree with Exspert. I am an old board school designer although I use computers today.
There is still nothing like having the pencil in your hand and a great piece of drawing paper. Most designers today couldn't draw if their life depended on it.
Computers have given license to anyone calling themselves a designer even though they lack the intellect and the talent to be one.
America had a supersonic on the drawing board but dropped out because of the high noise abatement, high maintenance and the cost of flying the aircraft. I am sure Germany had the same concerns.
But she was a beautiful aircraft to see. I saw here 4 or 5 times. One time up close and personal at the Farnborough Air Show in England. She came down like a graceful kite, pulled back the yoke, and back off like a fighter plane. It was something really great to see.
Le voir encore tel qu'il est, ça restera toujours un avion en avance sur son temps, bien qu'il pourrait du moins avoir encore actuellement 30 ans d'avance.
That means Concorde was, in some ways, the King of the planes (that's why the narrator speaks about "couronne") because he was the only supersonic passenger aircraft, but some tried to compete with Concorde ("ravir" can mean "voler", to steal, also).
"Certains ont tenté de lui volé sa première place."
"Mais celui d'années d'études et de recherches scientifiques" for the second.
When he says "celui", he talks about " le fruit", the "résult".
I find it funny that planes nowadays take longer to develop with the computer-aided designs, supposedly to help with aerodynamic efficiency". But look at the Concorde, made over 20 years ago, probably one of the most aerodynamic designs and no computer-designs. =O Makes you wonder what's happening to the world.
You show no logic. Concorde's design is optimised for a totally different type of flight to subsonics, and if Concorde would be 'updated' today, it would be done on a computer.
Computers make the process quicker, cheaper and easier, removing the need for lots of models and wind tunnel tests - it won't create results that are that much better than sitting down at a drawing board.
No... I understand that it would be done on a computer. And that they make the process everything you said. And if Concorde's design is optimised for a totally different type of flight then subsonic travel, would this not only complicate its design even more?
My point was that it is amazing that engineers could make such an elegant design that is also aerodynamic.
Concorde's wing is designed for high speeds, and gives little lift when flying subsonically, requiring a LOT of power from the engines. The wing (also the engines) may be optimised for high speed, but it doesn't mean it can't cope at slower speed.
Most designers today couldn't cope without their computers. Guys like Kelly Johnson were aviation design geniuses and designed them on napkins over drinks after lunch.
@scaremenga Saturn V did it. Concorde didt it too. But today, we don't accept the danger. In both cases (Saturn V and Concorde), It was risky to fly in.
For example: The first Concorde to take of in the morning at Charles de gaulle airport (Paris) had always a spare Concorde ready to take of in case of...!
And a lot of failures(not related in media) occured during its carrier.
For saturn V, the chances of success at every lift off were 1/2 at its best i think.
People are scared of, in general, everything. And they are scared of things they have no knowledge, or rather choose to have none. People should be more afraid of driving their cars than boarding and flying on an airplane. But they're not, they only think what the media puts into their minds about aviation.. and everything else. I don't know how often this happens in other reports, but every aviation report by any given media company, always has one huge mistake. "An Airbus A390 landed today.."
I was on about the aerodynamics, correct. But excellent aerodynamics lead to even greater efficiency. What the Concorde's Achilles heel was, it's main purpose, to travel supersonic which required increased fuel burn among other factors, negating that efficient design. If it had been designed to fly subsonic, theoretically speaking of course it would be entirely different, today's aviation may have been forever changed. A 787, but thirty years earlier.
@chrism216 It was never built to be efficient but just to get passengers from A to B as fast as possible and that is what it did until The last flight.
@chrism216 Yes, that's correct. But Concorde didn't fail this decade, it failed last decade and the decades preceding before the 90's. Then, payload meant little. Concorde was put out because of it's "bad" safety record (one crash.. insignificant).
they were, but what is not efficient is to fly at mach 2 with only 13 tons of payload (compared to 17 of a boeing 737, not even worth mentioning the payload of the 747). And we all know how fuel consumption goes up exponentially the faster you go.
theres a reason the concorde tickets were so expensive, it wasnt efficient at all, only efficient when it came to time. it used more fuel to carry less weight.
@scaremenga the airplanes made today that are desined by computers actually they take a lot less time and are a lot more accurate desines then the ones before computers where used. the aircrafts made before computers crashed 100X more then the 1s made today with computers. also do u know how much easier it is on the people designing the airplane. computers make designing airplanes quicker, easier, and a much better aircraft.
@hotwheels770 757 and the 767, and about 90% of all other jetliners in the skies today were made without the use of computers. And I can assure you their crash rates are not 100 times higher. Besides that, planes have been slowing down.. from the CV-880 and Concorde.. to current jetliners, you can see that trend. I never brought up ease of design, sometimes easiness leads to laziness. Is that good?
@scaremenga if u didn't notice the 757 and 767 type aircrafts did not make it on the market, and if u read history Boeing started using computers for their aircrafts in 1946 for the Ground-to-Air-Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA) missiles. The reason why aircrafts r taking longer 2 make is because they r alot more complex and safe. and u r wrong 90% of the aircrafts in the sky today r built using computers. and designing aircrafts on the computer is not easy it's just not as hard as it is by hand.
@hotwheels770 Read my comment carefully. I said all jetliner, that includes very single jet aircraft created and still flies today. MD-11? DC-10? 767, 757, 747, 737, 717, few 727's, DC-8, A300, DC-9, MD-80, ERJ, CRJ.. Yes, I'm sure these planes were built with the help of computers. But they weren't built soley on the computer, like the 777/787.
@scaremenga when somebody does somthing as complicated as design an airplane on paper it can stress sombody ou t an make them not think strait. when people don't think strait they make mistakes when they make mistakes on an airliner the airliner crashes. computers don't let people make mistakes like that. the computer will tell u if it is wrong or it will correct it itself.
@hotwheels770 Speaking as an industry professional I learned a couple of things but two things I was not tutoured in: GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - the other was by one of my faourite authors, Doug Adams he stated (and I do apologise for the mis-quote so allow for the approxomation) computers are stupid, because computers are quick the can be stupid many million times per second.
@wildhobby yeh but if u read my coments below u can c that people are also stupid and will mess up more than computers. like i said people can get over stressed. the airplanes maid before computers crashed alot more than the ones made today. the reason being that the design was not as good and the people who designed them and built them by hand and just by hand made many more mistakes then computers do today
@hotwheels770 Humans make computers, they make the software that creates the aircraft. Any mistake they make still happens. And anyways, do you really think Concorde engineers went "funny in the head"?
@scaremenga what i find really funny is that the lockheed sr 17, which could fly up to 3.2 mach, was designed, developed, built, and test flew all witthin about 85 days, yet it takes years for these "newer" planes to be designed
@mynameistravisbarker Wrong. It was just one crash in it's entire aviation history. It's probably one of the safest planes ever designed, on record, statistically.
@Pvjinflight Aircraft type doesn't really matter in this case, and even if it was an "illegal" piece it came off of that DC-10 and crashed the Concorde. You're right a "normal" plane probably wouldn't have crashed, as seen by bird-ingestions on the A321, 757, etc. But the Concorde wasnt "normal" and crashed. That crash wouldnt hace happened id that illegal piece had stayed on. It was not the aircraft's fault.
@scaremenga Actually it was made well over forty years ago! It's original design process began in the 1950's. The first one flew in 1969, just after I was born. The technological achievement was pretty much akin to the Moon landings at the time. Both pretty amazing achievements, considering the technology of the time.
British Airways DID make money from it for the most part, often bringing in over £50 Million a year profit. Not only this, but Concorde was fantastic marketing, which would have brought in even more money.
there is no supersonic passengers airplane anymore simply because its not worth the money. a concorde ticket was hideously expensive and tho "time is money" it wasnt worth that much money
It was worth that money. One prime example are the Saatchi brothers. In the 80's Maurice Saatchi flew it every week, allowing them to create this advertising empire.
Time is money, and in may cases, it was well worth it.
Second part to my response, just incase you didn't see it.
The Government was killing the British aircraft industry anyway, for so many reasons. What you still haven't grasped is that while Airbus is not directly British, wings amongst other things are still made here. If it weren't for Concorde, things would have been worse.
It's pretty much guaranteed that the British industry was dying anyway.
OK, it looked nice (in the air), and was an incredible technological feat given the era in which it was designed and built, but what did it actually achieve?
It got a few wealthy passengers to their destination(s) in a little over half the time of a subsonic aircraft...that's it!
It inspired, it excited, it made us proud, it showed what we could do.
It expanded our knowledge of aircraft, allowing Airbus to be formed and therefore break the passenger aircraft monopoly of the US.
It looks FANTASTIC, on the ground or in the air. It got people to their destination in under half the time, not over. It took 'ordinary' people, who saved up their money, on the trip of a lifetime. It brought people together, and served as a centerpiece of both Britain and France.
Billions of Pounds and Francs poured into it, and what real benefit did the world get from it?
Tangiable things I mean, not 'feelings'.
Why do people always go on about 'the trip of a lifetime'?
You're stuck in a relatively tiny fuselage, with no sensation of speed, just like any other airliner, and you only get half the time to enjoy the meal and drinks!
Normal a/c bring people together, so do trains, buses, cars and bikes.
It was made in a time of high hopes - the intent was to sell many aircraft to airlines. There was a lot of optimism. When things went bad, it was far too developed to stop.
You failing to see the significance of flying on Concorde is rare - it's just that way. You're thinking about it too much.
Bringing people together - as in it's something to celebrate, not literally 'moving' people to places but of course it did that as well.
I'm sure Airbus would have come into being without concorde.
Anyway, I'd rather have seen a British Aircraft manufacturer succeed instead ;o)
And because something is rare, that doesn't automatically make it significant.
The invention ofthe aircraft was significant, the invention of the jet engine was significant, concorde was not, it was just an obscenely expensive cul-de-sac.
How many supersonic passenger aircraft are there flying now?
It showed the USSR that we were still years ahead of them technologically and helped prevent a war. Their attempts to copy Concorde ended quite disasterously as they couldnt get the wings right.
Une superbe pièce d’ingénierie internationale, Come back, Concorde !
Isalys555 1 month ago
Je pense que cet avion a pas sa place dans des musees mais dans les airs
yeshanskate94 2 months ago
le tu-144 a copier sur le concorde
powell77260 3 months ago
Yes it's true but Tupolev TU-144 sucks ^^
lantonovdelagpe 4 months ago
puttain!!!! lors de l'accident c'est l'autre abruti d'avion qui a paumé sa piece il en peut rien!!! concorde revien !!!!
MrTheadri 4 months ago
c'est pour sa qu'il on arrêter concorde
powell77260 6 months ago
njkffjk
teteusogato 7 months ago
en plus que s'était même pas le faute de concorde
powell77260 7 months ago
le concorde a était crée en 1966 alors que le tu144 a était crée en 1968
powell77260 7 months ago
E
L
G
O
R
I
T
H
MASTER GROOVE ! ! !
ELGORITHM 8 months ago
saw her in seattle shes buetiful...legs up to her neck
chasetompkins33 8 months ago
de tous fasson le tu144 s est une grosse merde
powell77260 8 months ago
@powell77260 bravo pour ton esprit d'analyse, on sent bien l'expert aeronautique qui sommeille en toi, toujours pret à de bonnes phrases et surtout pour comparer les avions entre pays, il faut montrer que son pays est le plus fort, plus fort que tous les autres lol
anterak36 7 months ago
@anterak36 non pas forcément
powell77260 7 months ago
this is cool
fredericsix 9 months ago
We need another SST airliner, but more of a practical one. Mach 1.8 would do. would allow you to go from one side of the earth to the other in a business day. ie 10 hours. or sydney to london. time to start lobbying Boeing and Airbus I think....
Lastindependentthink 9 months ago
CONCORDE Special ! Great I liked !
TheDesktopuser 9 months ago
Si seulement Air France pouvait le remettre en service, cet avion est sublime. Il est le reflet de la belle alliance France/Angleterre mais aussi la belle image de ce qu'est l'aviation. On ne peut pas laisser cet avion disparaître dans nos mémoires. Reviens concorde !
OutlawsDead 10 months ago 13
@OutlawsDead il y a un projet de nouvel avion supersonique ;)
roupiremago 7 months ago
@OutlawsDead oubli le concorde il n'est plus rentable toute facon... air france il pense qu'aux chiffre d'affaire il s'en tape des client tinkiet pas ils on une mauvaise image en ce moment je bosse a roissy les passagés son pas trés content, mais le problem vien de CDG parceque c'est nul...
TURKMEN52 6 months ago
marcel dassault a dit pour qu un avion vole bien il faut qu il soit beau
mk.2 video
mickaelkoziar 5 months ago
es una tremenda pena ke la era concorde haya terminado de esa manera tan tragika....un avion excepcional ...un supersoniko ke dejo su huellita en la historia de la aviacion....
MrJucaloy 10 months ago
Um avião, um mito, um supersonico, uma preciosidade.
TheRobertinho100 10 months ago
The TU-144 isn't a copy of Concorde))) If u know))) Theese planes were built together and if u don't know Tu-144 has better aerodynamics than Concorde))) Also when Boeing began proecting new supersonic plane they chose Tu-144, not Concorde, rebuilt it to TU-144LL and were made many experiments on HIS board)))
Panch124 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch:
World's Greatest Amount of Compression Ratio Engine
TABAGfrancis 11 months ago
1 crash, because of metal pieces of McDouglas DC10...
and soviet trash copy never did anything except some shows
alors les jaloux , les anti France, désolés ; nous on sait...que vous etes complexés.
billbocate 11 months ago
Кстати, создавались эти два самолета совместно))))
Panch124 1 year ago
Tu-144 better)))))
Panch124 1 year ago
@Panch124 LOL Thats probably why it is so famous, and was so much in use.
JVC7400 1 year ago
SUGETI LA COIAE
matteo2019 1 year ago
top 10 horribles atterissage d'avions cliquez sur " SKIP AD " en haut a droite ---> h t t p u.bb/137019/top-10-atterrissage-avion-horribles
essaaf007 1 year ago
Cinema d'aviation!
Merci beaucoup
John K. Lindgren
Royaume de Thailande
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
;((((( i am so sorry.....Concordes was great
MagdalenaFz 1 year ago
maybe the best plane ever , they should construct only concords , i mean from 1969-2003 only one bad accident
richis404 1 year ago
ugly language
alexdop21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexdop21 with a comment like that.. you just show how ignorant you are.. tipical white trash..
jdgandaram 1 year ago
@jdgandaram 1st. i just hate that language, i was forced to learn it, but never liked it.
2.nd my opinion is my opinion strictly. Reflect my personal opinion and not all the white people...if you think about it most french people are Caucasian, so is not a racial issue here.
3. please if someone comment on my comment, i prefer english, because i don`t understand franch.
Thank you very much
alexdop21 1 year ago
@jdgandaram
SavaMarkovicPilot 1 year ago
@alexdop21 your mom is ugly
Drakma64 1 year ago
@Drakma64 Not quite. I don`t see the connection between my mom and the video.
alexdop21 1 year ago
...Damn.
I wish my pencils where THAT pointy >8C
Bilb1115 1 year ago
Simplismente maravilhoso, um mito.
TheRobertinho100 1 year ago
Hermoso y majestuoso..... es una lástima que no siga volando!
warairarepano2003 1 year ago
Concorde, avión de extraordinaria belleza y prestancia en vuelo.
luislineroq 1 year ago
UNBELIEVEBLE:::t
MissPriscilla1971 1 year ago
like a sleeeeek hottie
Santoslhelpa 1 year ago
comme les jolis femmes
(u wanna licker up and down nice and slow and damn right)
Santoslhelpa 1 year ago
THOMAS GILLION IS THE NEW SUPERSTAR : ON TV, ON THE NET, ON MAGAZINE etc....TYP HIS NAME ON YOUTUBE AND WATCH HIS VIDEO NOW !
johnlouisjacques 1 year ago
Tres elegante, magnifique. Not bad French for a working class English guy lol!
wildhobby 1 year ago
It's scary to consider that many kids will look at photos and videos like this and think the Concorde is some kind of future concept design, compared with the commercial airplanes in production for the last 30 years...
And also a failure of civilization to choose not to continue to explore and develop technology that was possible more than 40 years ago without computer-assisted design.
LakeNipissing 1 year ago
The most beautiful aircraft in the World.
Emswind1 1 year ago
Ele era unico.
Edesiomt1 1 year ago
people think this was the fastest passenger jet ever. But there was also an russian version of the concorde: Tupolev Tu-144. But still i like better the concorde because im German. :)
roddycake16 1 year ago
@roddycake16
But the Concorde was the first and the Tupolev was just made after and by an industrial espionage (by spies) of the Concorde ^^
cumbas 1 year ago 5
je me souviens encore du double bang le soir quand il passait pas loin au dessus de la manche...
yaglourt 1 year ago
Le concorde est une oeuvre d'art, d'ailleur au bourget on peut aller le visiter gratos...
Agarthalien 1 year ago
T H E . B E S T !!!
vilatge 1 year ago
CONCORDE; el avion mas hermoso que surcara los cielos del mundo, aun asi en su ausencia. te extrañamos
daemo28 1 year ago
Concorde was built by the masters ,the Best Of the Best in Aviation world ( Franco-Britanic ) .Americans always learn from Europeans,and gaining faster knowledge due to her multiTrillion in wealth.But Without doubt Europeans are the Masters in Aviation than anyone in the world.This 1969 technologies really proved how advance was France and Britain are in Aviation.
Concorde still amazing marvel even after her death,the crown still and will remain on her grave.
mars3400 1 year ago
Un des plus beaux du genre !!! The most beautiful plane ever !!! Das schönste jemals gebaute Flugzeug !!
Slaterator 1 year ago
belle avion
trailer97 1 year ago
The concorde flights had to be subsidised all the time, what a terrible waste of money! ???? Just for the Prestige !!!!
C'estais une gaspillage d'argent extreme!!!
Mann1979HH 1 year ago
subtitles??
SavaMarkovicPilot 1 year ago
Le plus beau et toujours le plus beau aujourd'hui !
veronimes 1 year ago
tu 144 c'etais une copie du concorde,on a vue le resultat au bourget le crasch sur gousainville
lucky83460 1 year ago
@lucky83460
if Tu-144 is a copy of Concorde, why it was created first? O_O
epic fail dude
Scoutrussp7 1 year ago
concorde a ete et sera toujours le plus bel avion que sa deplaise a certains.
lucky83460 1 year ago
Rule Brittania
Paintheshed 1 year ago
J'ai eu l'occasion de le voir de près et même de le visiter sur la zone de montage de l'Airbus A 380 à Toulouse, c'est vrai qu'il est splendide un peu moins grand que ce que l'on pourrait imaginer mais c'était l'avion présidentiel.
cazautine1 1 year ago
c'etait un super avion a tout point de vue,je l'ai vu quitter Quebec city lors d'un festival aerien, quel oiseau majestueux
gaetandionne2000 1 year ago
Et en plus c'est pas de sa faute au Concorde c'est celle du DC-10 de Continantal airlines.
ninodu1616 2 years ago 3
C'etait pas de 1ere Supersonique - TU-144 etait le 1ere
toooldtorocknroll 2 years ago
tooldto machin bidule t est un cretin renseigne toi avant de l ouvrir ;le concorde volait bien avant le TU144 ; les russes ont espionné et copié le concorde; sauf qu il qu il etait moche et qu il volait comme un fer a repasser leurs TU144
laciterne95 2 years ago 13
@laciterne95 tu peut pas écrire francais
powell77260 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laciterne95 tu peut pas écrire français
powell77260 11 months ago
@laciterne95 lol toi aussi renseigne toi car tu vien de raconter que de la merde
copswar3 10 months ago
@laciterne95 Ils ont pas espionner, Ls constructeurs des deux appareils communiquaient entre eux, cependant ne croit pas que les Francais et Anglais n'ont pas chercher a copier quelques truck sur le TU-144..
PitBull91200 9 months ago
@PitBull91200 non les russe on copier le concorde
powell77260 8 months ago
@powell77260 Au lieu de faire ton petit "je sais tout" rensigne toi..
PitBull91200 8 months ago
je suis navré c'est ducamembere c'est tout si un tout petit cailloux a pu transversé un aile et je suis encore navré mais c'est un avion connerie pas exception le B737 est un avion d'exption rappellez vous le le vol ALOHA235!
imazighen87 2 years ago
@imazighen87 ouai bah moi aus chui navré...pour toi car c'est pas un petit caillou mais un morceau de pneu de 5kg à 300km/h qui a explosé le réservoir!!
ninodu1616 2 years ago
Le Seigneur des Airs
cellendhyl 2 years ago
King of the sky !
sloppiexx 2 years ago 13
I miss it...
RPJess 2 years ago
@sloppiexx more precisely queen of the skies :)
SavaMarkovicPilot 11 months ago 3
I also agree with Exspert. I am an old board school designer although I use computers today.
There is still nothing like having the pencil in your hand and a great piece of drawing paper. Most designers today couldn't draw if their life depended on it.
Computers have given license to anyone calling themselves a designer even though they lack the intellect and the talent to be one.
BoomerNavy70 2 years ago
America had a supersonic on the drawing board but dropped out because of the high noise abatement, high maintenance and the cost of flying the aircraft. I am sure Germany had the same concerns.
But she was a beautiful aircraft to see. I saw here 4 or 5 times. One time up close and personal at the Farnborough Air Show in England. She came down like a graceful kite, pulled back the yoke, and back off like a fighter plane. It was something really great to see.
BoomerNavy70 2 years ago
ouais y'a pas à chier... les ailes delta rendent vraiment la classe sur cet avion
pouletgrillet33 2 years ago 2
I cannot understand why germany didn't develop a supersonic aircraft for her own. the only civil supersonic aircrafts have been european...
anisocoro 2 years ago
Le voir encore tel qu'il est, ça restera toujours un avion en avance sur son temps, bien qu'il pourrait du moins avoir encore actuellement 30 ans d'avance.
Agarthalien 2 years ago
tres beau :)
Exagerative 2 years ago
beautiful wing
Santoslhelpa 2 years ago
I saw it once take off from JFK (NY): Awesome !
Fridomfry 2 years ago
je cherche à améliorer mon français, et il y a deux parts de ce que dit le narrateur que je ne comprends pas. quelqu'un peut m'aider?
"certains ont tenté de X sa couronne"
"mais celui d'un X et de recherche scientifique"
merci d'avance!
bogsheet 2 years ago
Bonjour,
Les 2 parties sont:
"certains ont tenté de lui ravir sa couronne"
"mais celui d'années d'études de recherches scientifiques"
;)
Keoz199 2 years ago
merci keoz199!
deux parties non pas deux parts aussi!
:-)
bogsheet 2 years ago
"certains ont tenté de ravir sa couronne"
That means Concorde was, in some ways, the King of the planes (that's why the narrator speaks about "couronne") because he was the only supersonic passenger aircraft, but some tried to compete with Concorde ("ravir" can mean "voler", to steal, also).
"Certains ont tenté de lui volé sa première place."
"Mais celui d'années d'études et de recherches scientifiques" for the second.
When he says "celui", he talks about " le fruit", the "résult".
jerrymail 2 years ago
Oui enfin jpense qu'il avait compris... Keoz a tres bien expliqué les choses...pas besoin de toujours se la ramener quoi
EastSound01 2 years ago
Pffff si on avait arrêté tous les avions dès leur premier crash...
subbuteo91 2 years ago
y en aurait plus!
Idsart 2 years ago
dommage ils on réussie a ce que la france le supprime
fannylibre 2 years ago
Way ahead of it's time.
nigee008 2 years ago 3
spot on...this was way,way ahead of its time
ecotts 2 years ago
in this month it is 40 years of the concordes first flight and there are rumors about air france tking one concorde into service again
estonski 2 years ago
They're really not. What a load of crap - seriously.
qwertdr 2 years ago
A beautiful machine & incredible accomplishment.
mbandarra3 2 years ago 3
fukkin crap your history maybe be a load of bullshit
what dome people
hustlah1996 2 years ago
I find it funny that planes nowadays take longer to develop with the computer-aided designs, supposedly to help with aerodynamic efficiency". But look at the Concorde, made over 20 years ago, probably one of the most aerodynamic designs and no computer-designs. =O Makes you wonder what's happening to the world.
scaremenga 2 years ago 34
I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks :X hugs Bring back the Concorde!!!
VNVgirl 2 years ago
You show no logic. Concorde's design is optimised for a totally different type of flight to subsonics, and if Concorde would be 'updated' today, it would be done on a computer.
Computers make the process quicker, cheaper and easier, removing the need for lots of models and wind tunnel tests - it won't create results that are that much better than sitting down at a drawing board.
qwertdr 2 years ago
No... I understand that it would be done on a computer. And that they make the process everything you said. And if Concorde's design is optimised for a totally different type of flight then subsonic travel, would this not only complicate its design even more?
My point was that it is amazing that engineers could make such an elegant design that is also aerodynamic.
scaremenga 2 years ago
Concorde's wing is designed for high speeds, and gives little lift when flying subsonically, requiring a LOT of power from the engines. The wing (also the engines) may be optimised for high speed, but it doesn't mean it can't cope at slower speed.
qwertdr 2 years ago
Most designers today couldn't cope without their computers. Guys like Kelly Johnson were aviation design geniuses and designed them on napkins over drinks after lunch.
MrExspert 2 years ago
@scaremenga Saturn V did it. Concorde didt it too. But today, we don't accept the danger. In both cases (Saturn V and Concorde), It was risky to fly in.
For example: The first Concorde to take of in the morning at Charles de gaulle airport (Paris) had always a spare Concorde ready to take of in case of...!
And a lot of failures(not related in media) occured during its carrier.
For saturn V, the chances of success at every lift off were 1/2 at its best i think.
syntaxerror9 1 year ago
Nowdays, nobody can accept these risks. Imagine! Us army created the concept of "zero kill" just before the invasion of Irak!
That shows you the state of mind of todays people and expalin why now it take so longer to create things already done so many years before.
syntaxerror9 1 year ago
People are scared of, in general, everything. And they are scared of things they have no knowledge, or rather choose to have none. People should be more afraid of driving their cars than boarding and flying on an airplane. But they're not, they only think what the media puts into their minds about aviation.. and everything else. I don't know how often this happens in other reports, but every aviation report by any given media company, always has one huge mistake. "An Airbus A390 landed today.."
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga Yes, but it wasn't very Efficient was it? I think you're on about the aerodynamics and not effeciency.
cookiecave1283 1 year ago
I was on about the aerodynamics, correct. But excellent aerodynamics lead to even greater efficiency. What the Concorde's Achilles heel was, it's main purpose, to travel supersonic which required increased fuel burn among other factors, negating that efficient design. If it had been designed to fly subsonic, theoretically speaking of course it would be entirely different, today's aviation may have been forever changed. A 787, but thirty years earlier.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga maybe that's why it was retired so early
cosminx2003 1 year ago
@scaremenga
efficiency is not only determined by the aerodynamics. nowadays efficiency means big payloads. concorde was shit in terms of efficiency.
chrism216 1 year ago
@chrism216 It was never built to be efficient but just to get passengers from A to B as fast as possible and that is what it did until The last flight.
trytofly22 1 year ago
@chrism216 Yes, that's correct. But Concorde didn't fail this decade, it failed last decade and the decades preceding before the 90's. Then, payload meant little. Concorde was put out because of it's "bad" safety record (one crash.. insignificant).
scaremenga 1 year ago
@chrism216 The Olympus engines that Concorde's had were one of the most efficient jet engines created.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga
they were, but what is not efficient is to fly at mach 2 with only 13 tons of payload (compared to 17 of a boeing 737, not even worth mentioning the payload of the 747). And we all know how fuel consumption goes up exponentially the faster you go.
theres a reason the concorde tickets were so expensive, it wasnt efficient at all, only efficient when it came to time. it used more fuel to carry less weight.
chrism216 1 year ago
@scaremenga the airplanes made today that are desined by computers actually they take a lot less time and are a lot more accurate desines then the ones before computers where used. the aircrafts made before computers crashed 100X more then the 1s made today with computers. also do u know how much easier it is on the people designing the airplane. computers make designing airplanes quicker, easier, and a much better aircraft.
hotwheels770 1 year ago
@hotwheels770 757 and the 767, and about 90% of all other jetliners in the skies today were made without the use of computers. And I can assure you their crash rates are not 100 times higher. Besides that, planes have been slowing down.. from the CV-880 and Concorde.. to current jetliners, you can see that trend. I never brought up ease of design, sometimes easiness leads to laziness. Is that good?
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga if u didn't notice the 757 and 767 type aircrafts did not make it on the market, and if u read history Boeing started using computers for their aircrafts in 1946 for the Ground-to-Air-Pilotless Aircraft (GAPA) missiles. The reason why aircrafts r taking longer 2 make is because they r alot more complex and safe. and u r wrong 90% of the aircrafts in the sky today r built using computers. and designing aircrafts on the computer is not easy it's just not as hard as it is by hand.
hotwheels770 1 year ago
@hotwheels770 Read my comment carefully. I said all jetliner, that includes very single jet aircraft created and still flies today. MD-11? DC-10? 767, 757, 747, 737, 717, few 727's, DC-8, A300, DC-9, MD-80, ERJ, CRJ.. Yes, I'm sure these planes were built with the help of computers. But they weren't built soley on the computer, like the 777/787.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga when somebody does somthing as complicated as design an airplane on paper it can stress sombody ou t an make them not think strait. when people don't think strait they make mistakes when they make mistakes on an airliner the airliner crashes. computers don't let people make mistakes like that. the computer will tell u if it is wrong or it will correct it itself.
hotwheels770 1 year ago
@hotwheels770 Speaking as an industry professional I learned a couple of things but two things I was not tutoured in: GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - the other was by one of my faourite authors, Doug Adams he stated (and I do apologise for the mis-quote so allow for the approxomation) computers are stupid, because computers are quick the can be stupid many million times per second.
wildhobby 1 year ago
@wildhobby yeh but if u read my coments below u can c that people are also stupid and will mess up more than computers. like i said people can get over stressed. the airplanes maid before computers crashed alot more than the ones made today. the reason being that the design was not as good and the people who designed them and built them by hand and just by hand made many more mistakes then computers do today
hotwheels770 1 year ago
@hotwheels770 Humans make computers, they make the software that creates the aircraft. Any mistake they make still happens. And anyways, do you really think Concorde engineers went "funny in the head"?
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga kiss me rass bombaclut
zederish 1 year ago
@scaremenga wrong argument... there were no computer-based tools at that time
becomepostal 1 year ago
@scaremenga what i find really funny is that the lockheed sr 17, which could fly up to 3.2 mach, was designed, developed, built, and test flew all witthin about 85 days, yet it takes years for these "newer" planes to be designed
nmbanana 1 year ago
@scaremenga the plans were made in 1955, first one flew in 69...
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@scaremenga 40 years ago :) 1969.
TruyC 1 year ago
@scaremenga maybe thats why it always screwed up
mynameistravisbarker 1 year ago
@mynameistravisbarker It never screwed up. It sucked up a wheel-piece from a 767 and crashed. Hardly it's fault.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga oh really? didnt know that, but then again it wasnt just one crash.
mynameistravisbarker 1 year ago
@mynameistravisbarker Wrong. It was just one crash in it's entire aviation history. It's probably one of the safest planes ever designed, on record, statistically.
MrDragon1968 1 year ago
@scaremenga It sucked part of DC-10, not 767, and that part was not original part of DC-10, it was illegal copy.
Plane just shouldnt crash because pretty small object hits to it, normal plane like 737 or A340 wouldnt crash.
Pvjinflight 1 year ago
@Pvjinflight Aircraft type doesn't really matter in this case, and even if it was an "illegal" piece it came off of that DC-10 and crashed the Concorde. You're right a "normal" plane probably wouldn't have crashed, as seen by bird-ingestions on the A321, 757, etc. But the Concorde wasnt "normal" and crashed. That crash wouldnt hace happened id that illegal piece had stayed on. It was not the aircraft's fault.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga over 20 years ? over 35 years, anyway thumbs up for your comment and this doesnt count only for planes
richis404 1 year ago
@scaremenga Actually it was made well over forty years ago! It's original design process began in the 1950's. The first one flew in 1969, just after I was born. The technological achievement was pretty much akin to the Moon landings at the time. Both pretty amazing achievements, considering the technology of the time.
MrDragon1968 1 year ago
sweet
j12fragah 2 years ago
Wonderful!!!!!
tangodeltasierra003 2 years ago
the most beautiful man made object
giuliano170 2 years ago 24
@giuliano170 FASTEST COMERCIAL OBJECT...... THATS THE POINT>.........
FruityLoopsas 1 year ago
@giuliano170 yeah,. except for the fact that it's french :P
6SIX6Bloodshedded 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@6SIX6Bloodshedded You smell like shit.
clarinetman1664 1 year ago
big, beauiful and elegant!
adeelalam084 2 years ago 3
To bad the people who really appriciate it, can't afford a ticket...
barthoedemaker 2 years ago
i love concorde
MegaMYB 2 years ago
why concord stops
aganez 2 years ago
because of the crash in 2000 in a hotel
pilootkay 2 years ago
Its not because of that. Boeing have more crashes under its belt and theyr still flyin.
The Concorde is mighty expensive to fly and no 1 did make any money onnit. Instead the lost a lot of money on that plane.
ClydeTM 2 years ago
and because of the crash they didnt produse them annymore
pilootkay 2 years ago
Moron. The last one was made in 1979, 21 years before the crash.
The crash had NO direct impact on retirement, which was down to cost.
qwertdr 2 years ago
Omg yes it did i have seen that plane in real and got a history lesson with it
pilootkay 2 years ago
Well your history lesson is a load of crap then.
qwertdr 2 years ago
British Airways DID make money from it for the most part, often bringing in over £50 Million a year profit. Not only this, but Concorde was fantastic marketing, which would have brought in even more money.
Please do research before talking rubbish.
qwertdr 2 years ago 4
un bel oiseau blanc
fisherman076 2 years ago
there is no supersonic passengers airplane anymore simply because its not worth the money. a concorde ticket was hideously expensive and tho "time is money" it wasnt worth that much money
deklzdepa 2 years ago
It was worth that money. One prime example are the Saatchi brothers. In the 80's Maurice Saatchi flew it every week, allowing them to create this advertising empire.
Time is money, and in may cases, it was well worth it.
qwertdr 2 years ago 3
If BAC hadn't spent so much time and money on concorde, britain might still have a world-leading, thriving aircraft manufacturer.
Docv400 2 years ago
Second part to my response, just incase you didn't see it.
The Government was killing the British aircraft industry anyway, for so many reasons. What you still haven't grasped is that while Airbus is not directly British, wings amongst other things are still made here. If it weren't for Concorde, things would have been worse.
It's pretty much guaranteed that the British industry was dying anyway.
qwertdr 2 years ago
OK, it looked nice (in the air), and was an incredible technological feat given the era in which it was designed and built, but what did it actually achieve?
It got a few wealthy passengers to their destination(s) in a little over half the time of a subsonic aircraft...that's it!
Docv400 2 years ago
It inspired, it excited, it made us proud, it showed what we could do.
It expanded our knowledge of aircraft, allowing Airbus to be formed and therefore break the passenger aircraft monopoly of the US.
It looks FANTASTIC, on the ground or in the air. It got people to their destination in under half the time, not over. It took 'ordinary' people, who saved up their money, on the trip of a lifetime. It brought people together, and served as a centerpiece of both Britain and France.
qwertdr 2 years ago 2
But why do things 'just because we can'?
Billions of Pounds and Francs poured into it, and what real benefit did the world get from it?
Tangiable things I mean, not 'feelings'.
Why do people always go on about 'the trip of a lifetime'?
You're stuck in a relatively tiny fuselage, with no sensation of speed, just like any other airliner, and you only get half the time to enjoy the meal and drinks!
Normal a/c bring people together, so do trains, buses, cars and bikes.
Docv400 2 years ago
It was made in a time of high hopes - the intent was to sell many aircraft to airlines. There was a lot of optimism. When things went bad, it was far too developed to stop.
You failing to see the significance of flying on Concorde is rare - it's just that way. You're thinking about it too much.
Bringing people together - as in it's something to celebrate, not literally 'moving' people to places but of course it did that as well.
And once again - killing the monopoly of the US.
qwertdr 2 years ago
I'm sure Airbus would have come into being without concorde.
Anyway, I'd rather have seen a British Aircraft manufacturer succeed instead ;o)
And because something is rare, that doesn't automatically make it significant.
The invention ofthe aircraft was significant, the invention of the jet engine was significant, concorde was not, it was just an obscenely expensive cul-de-sac.
How many supersonic passenger aircraft are there flying now?
Exactly.
Docv400 2 years ago
Boeing seem to be doing OK, without having had a supersonic aircraft in their model line-up ;o)
'Thinking about it too much?'
Pity the people behind it didn't think a bit more!
If man didn't think enough, we'd still be living in caves ;o)
Docv400 2 years ago
Now you're being stupid, going of the point and taking what I'm saying out of context.
Airbus would not have the knowledge it has today with out Concorde - A LOT of knowledge came from it.
Rare? I never said rare. It was because it was special, different, it was inspiring, it was a huge feat to be proud of.
You also seem to ignore some of the other things I say.
Also, in life, ENJOY YOURSELF. Just get on, its done, accept it and enjoy your life rather than hanging on. You only live once.
qwertdr 2 years ago
It showed the USSR that we were still years ahead of them technologically and helped prevent a war. Their attempts to copy Concorde ended quite disasterously as they couldnt get the wings right.
andrewp3883 2 years ago 4
MISS YOU CONCORDE AND LOVE YOU FOREVER
CAAAAAAAAT1 2 years ago 3
more speed mstr zulu:]
ukulel 2 years ago
Beautifull
Albanissimo1992 2 years ago